Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data Information Paper: July 2005

REVIEW OF HEAVY VEHICLE AXLE LOAD DATA Information Paper
July 2005
Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd
National Transport Commission

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data Report Prepared by: ARRB Transport Research Ltd ISBN: 1 877093 81 5
REPORT OUTLINE
Date: ISBN: Title: Address: July 2005 1 877093 81 5 Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data National Transport Commission Level 15/628 Bourke Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000 E-mail: ntc@ntc.gov.au Website: www.ntc.gov.au Type of report: Objectives: Information Paper To determine the relationships between the summation of axle group ESAs and GVM for a number of common heavy vehicle types. To determine the distribution and extent of overloaded axle groups among vehicles that are not exceeding GVM limits for a number of common heavy vehicle types. NTC Programs: Abstract: Road Pricing This report provides a method (in the form of quadratic equations) for predicting equivalent standard axles (ESA) for nine different heavy vehicle types, enabling the NTC to estimate ESA values from gross vehicle mass. This report also provides information on the extent to which axle group overloading within GVM limits occurs and the magnitude of this overloading, described according to the Road Transport Reform (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill Model Provisions. To enable the NTC to predict ESA from gross vehicle mass and to provide information which will guide the NTC in determining whether an axle overloading defence might be appropriate where gross limits have not been exceeded. Axle group overloading, ESA, equations
Purpose:
Key words:
FOREWORD
The National Transport Commission (NTC) is an independent body established under an Inter-Governmental Agreement, and funded jointly by the Australian Government, States and Territories. The NTC has an on-going responsibility to develop, monitor and maintain uniform or nationally consistent regulatory and operational reforms relating to road transport, rail transport and intermodal transport. The NTCs heavy vehicle road pricing work contributes to strategies pursuing transport as a more sustainable activity, and in devising smarter approaches to regulation, provides both increased flexibility and greater certainty about results achieved. National heavy vehicle road use charges were first introduced in 1995-96 following the First Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination. A Second Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination was agreed and implemented in 2000. The Third Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination is an efficiency initiative on the NTCs national regulatory reform agenda, and is focussed on ensuring the prices paid by heavy vehicles for use of the road system reflect the Pricing Principles agreed by the Australian Transport Council (ATC), and in particular, continue to recover their share of the costs of providing and maintaining roads. Work on the Third Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination has involved a major overhaul of the input data to the cost allocation model used in the Second Determination. The cost allocation model uses road expenditure and road usage data as inputs, and attributes expenditure by vehicle class as an output. The input data has been reviewed and revised through a series of projects that have taken place over the last two years. These projects are being reported in a series of Information Papers this report being one of them. The main purpose of this Information Paper is to establish the relationships between gross vehicle mass and the vehicle equivalent standard axles (ESA) metric for a range of common heavy vehicle types. The paper also establishes the distribution of heavy vehicles that have overloaded axle groups but are not overloaded by gross vehicle mass (GVM) standards. The NTC will use this information as a tool to predict ESAs by GVM with confidence for nine common vehicle types which will assist in the preparation of the Third Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination. A Third Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination Draft Technical Report has been prepared which incorporates the results of this Paper and the work reported in the other Information Papers. The NTC acknowledges the work of Rod George and Tanya Styles from ARRB Transport Research Ltd as the major contributors to this report, as well as the contributions of the NTC Road Pricing team comprising Chris Egger, Fiona Calvert, Kerry Todero and Keith Lloyd. Stuart Hicks Chairman
SUMMARY
The National Transport Commission (NTC) commissioned ARRB to conduct the following two tasks using observed vehicle axle mass information. The first task was to establish the relationships between gross vehicle mass and the vehicle equivalent standard axles metric for a range of common heavy vehicle types. The second task was to establish the distribution of heavy vehicles that have overloaded axle groups but are not overloaded by gross vehicle mass standards. The extent to which the axles were overloaded was also required to be established. The outputs from this project will assist the NTC to assess the merits of protecting public safety, pavements and bridges through controls on the mass of individual heavy vehicle axle groups. In undertaking such an assessment, the NTC requires the ability to estimate equivalent standard axles (ESA) from gross vehicle mass (GVM), for a range of purposes, and also requires information on the distribution of heavy vehicles that have overloaded axle groups but are not over GVM limits. In order to meet the project objectives, weigh-in-motion data from six jurisdictions, collected during 1998, 1999 and 2000 were interrogated and analysed. For the first task, the equivalent standard axles metric was computed for each agreed heavy vehicle type. Regression expressions of 11 different forms were investigated using GVM as the independent variable and the summed ESA value as the dependent variable. The expression (predictive equation) that accounted for the most variance in ESA is reported along with the coefficient of determinations (adjusted r-squared), which ranged between 0.88 and 0.98 (see following table). The following predictive equations were developed to estimate ESA from GVM for nine vehicle types:
Vehicle type R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 Predictive Equation Predicted ESA = (0.0461 x GVM) - (0.0156 x GVM2) + (0.0018 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0957 x GVM) - (0.0099 x GVM2) + (0.00059 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1010 x GVM) - (0.0120 x GVM2) + (0.00052 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.08000 x GVM) - (0.0051 x GVM2) + (0.00018 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1190 x GVM) (0.0068 x GVM2) + (0.00016 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0677 x GVM) - (0.0024 x GVM2) + (0.000058 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1050 x GVM) - (0.0041 x GVM2) + (0.000066 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0480 x GVM) - (0.0009 x Predicted ESA = (0.1030 x GVM) - (0.0021 x GVM2) GVM2) + (0.000023 x + (0.000019 x GVM3) GVM3) GVM range (t) 2.5 - 16.4 6.3 - 25.6 (& up to 8 tonne steer) 8.2 - 36.3 9.3 - 41.6 (& up to 8 tonne steer) 12.9 - 50.6 15.2 - 66.4 18.8 - 73.1 18.1 - 82.8 28.4 - 137.7 r2 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.91 0.98
The distribution and extent of overloaded axle groups when vehicles were under the GVM limit were determined from weigh-in-motion data. The analysis for two-axle rigid vehicles in Australia showed that 1.1 per cent of the drive axles were overloaded, and 4.4 per cent of the trailer axle groups on six-axle articulated vehicles were also overloaded. Information on overloading for the selected nine vehicle types is presented in graphical and tabular form in the report.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Background.................................................................................................................1 1.2 Purpose ......................................................................................................................1 1.3 Scope..........................................................................................................................2
2. METHOD.................................................................................................................2
2.1 The data......................................................................................................................2
3. PART A ESA AND GVM RELATIONSHIPS.......................................................5

3.1 Method........................................................................................................................5 3.2 Results........................................................................................................................6
3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.2.7 3.2.8 3.2.9 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1) ..................................................................................................6 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)................................................................................................7 Four-Axle Rigid (R2-2)..................................................................................................7 Five-Axle Single Articulated (A122) ..............................................................................8 Six-Axle Single Articulated (A123) ................................................................................9 B-Double (B1232).......................................................................................................10 B-Double (B1233).......................................................................................................11 A-Double (A123-T23) .................................................................................................12 A-Triple (A123-T23-T23).............................................................................................13
4. PART B DISTRIBUTION OF OVERLOADED AXLES .....................................14

4.1 Method......................................................................................................................14 4.2 Results......................................................................................................................14
4.2.1 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1) ................................................................................................14 4.2.2 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)..............................................................................................17 4.2.3 Four-Axle Rigid (R2-2)................................................................................................21 4.2.4 Five-Axle Single Articulated (A122) ............................................................................24 4.2.5 Six-Axle Single Articulated (A123) ..............................................................................28 4.2.6 Eight-Axle B-Double (B1232)......................................................................................32 4.2.7 Nine-Axle B-Double (B1233) ......................................................................................35 4.2.8 A-Double (A123-T23) .................................................................................................39 4.2.9 A-Triple (A123-T23-T23).............................................................................................41 4.2.10 Axle group overloading ...............................................................................................44 4.2.11 Magnitude of axle group overloading..........................................................................50
5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................59 APPENDIX A ESA ESTIMATES USING THE PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS.........................................................................................................61
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. Table 8. Table 9. Table 10. Table 11. Table 12. Table 13. Table 14. Table 15. Table 16. Table 17. Number vehicles recorded in each jurisdiction ........................................... 3 Records removed from analysis due to excessive speed or violation of GVM limits........................................................................................................ 4 Axle group mass limits (including 10% tolerance) ...................................... 4 Equivalent standard axles reference values ................................................ 5 Summary of predictive equations ............................................................... 14 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for all jurisdictions .................... 44 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 1 ....................... 45 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 2 ....................... 45 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 3 ....................... 46 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 4 ....................... 47 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 5 ....................... 48 Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 6 ....................... 49 Number of axle groups over the load limit for vehicles under the GVM limit................................................................................................................. 50 Axle overloading magnitude statistics (Classes 3 -10) ............................. 57 Axle overloading magnitude statistics (Class 11 & 12) ............................. 58 Statutory axle group mass values............................................................... 61 Equivalent standard axle values.................................................................. 62
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. Figure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7. Figure 8. Figure 9. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for R1-1 vehicles ................................................................................................... 6 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for R1-2 vehicles ................................................................................................... 7 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for R2-2 vehicles ................................................................................................... 8 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A122 vehicles .................................................................................................. 9 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A123 vehicles .................................................................................................. 9 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for B1232 vehicles .............................................................................................. 10 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for B1233 vehicles .............................................................................................. 11 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A123-T23 vehicles. ........................................................................................ 12 Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for ATriple vehicles ............................................................................................... 13
Figure 10. Figure 11. Figure 12. Figure 13. Figure 14. Figure 15. Figure 16. Figure 17. Figure 18. Figure 19. Figure 20. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23. Figure 24. Figure 25. Figure 26. Figure 27. Figure 28. Figure 29. Figure 30. Figure 31. Figure 32. Figure 33. Figure 34. Figure 35. Figure 36. Figure 37. Figure 38. Figure 39. Figure 40. Figure 41. Figure 42. Figure 43. Figure 44. Figure 45. Figure 46.
Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 ..14 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 .....15 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 .....15 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 .....16 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 .....16 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 .....17 Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 .....17 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 ...18 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 .....19 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 .....19 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 .....19 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 .....20 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 .....20 Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 .....21 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 ..22 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 .....22 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 .....22 group overloading for R2-2 vehicles (r2-2) Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000....23 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 .....23 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 .....24 Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 .....24 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 .25 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 ....25 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 ....26 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 ....26 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 ....27 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 ....27 Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 ....28 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 .29 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 ....29 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 ....29 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 ....30 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 ....30 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 ....31 Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 ....31 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles all jurisdictions 19982000.................................................................................................................32 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 ..32
Figure 47. Figure 48. Figure 49. Figure 50. Figure 51. Figure 52. Figure 53. Figure 54. Figure 55. Figure 56. Figure 57. Figure 58. Figure 59. Figure 60. Figure 61. Figure 62. Figure 63. Figure 64. Figure 65. Figure 66. Figure 67. Figure 68. Figure 69. Figure 70. Figure 71. Figure 72. Figure 73.
Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 .. 33 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 .. 33 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 .. 34 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 .. 34 Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 .. 35 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles all jurisdictions 19982000 ................................................................................................................ 35 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000 .. 36 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 1998-2000 .. 36 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 .. 37 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 .. 37 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 1998-2000 .. 38 Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 .. 38 Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles - all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 39 Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 19982000 ................................................................................................................ 39 Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 19982000 ................................................................................................................ 40 Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 19982000 ................................................................................................................ 40 Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 19982000 ................................................................................................................ 41 Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles - all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 41 Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000 ....................................................................................................... 42 Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 1998-2000 ....................................................................................................... 42 Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 1998-2000 ....................................................................................................... 43 Magnitude of axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 51 Magnitude of axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 51 Magnitude of axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 52 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A122 vehicles (A122) all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 52 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 53 Magnitude of axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000................................................................................. 53
Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. Figure 77.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000 .................................................................................54 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 1 & 2 ..................................54 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 3 to 5..................................55 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 1 to 4 ..........................................................................................55 Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 5 to 7 ..........................................................................................56
Figure 78.
Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data
Page 1
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background
The National Transport Commission (NTC) requires the ability to estimate equivalent standard axles (ESA) from gross vehicle mass (GVM), for a range of purposes, including assessment of the benefits and costs associated with introducing performance standards to regulate pavement wear by different vehicle types. The NTC also wishes to establish the distribution of heavy vehicles that have overloaded axle groups but are not overloaded by gross vehicle mass (GVM) current limits. The extent to which the axles are overloaded is also required to be established. The NTC commissioned ARRB to investigate these two aspects of heavy vehicle axle loads and this draft report documents the method and outcomes of this investigation. 1.2 Purpose
The outputs from this project will assist the NTC to assess the merits of protecting public safety, pavements and bridges through controls on the mass of individual axle groups of heavy vehicles. It will provide important input data to the consideration of potential performance standards, to operate as an alternative to conventional mass limits and as an input to the Third Heavy Vehicle Road Pricing Determination. The project will also allow more accurate estimates of the pavement impacts of vehicle loads to be prepared for a range of applications. A number of the submissions received by the NTC from the public circulation of the draft Road Transport Reform (Compliance and Enforcement) Bill raise strong concerns about the proposed treatment of vehicles with overloaded axles. The Bill provides a three-tier risk categorisation of mass breaches, with the breakpoints for the breach categories approximately corresponding to:

0 per cent 5 per cent (a minor risk breach), 5 per cent 20 per cent (a substantial risk breach) and >20 per cent (a severe risk breach).
Some of the enforcement powers and penalties in the Bill have been linked to these risk categories. These categories apply irrespective of whether the overloading is by an individual axle or the entire vehicle combination. Some of the concerns about the treatment of axle overloading have called for a defence where the axle overloading does not result in a breach of the applicable vehicle or combination mass limits. In addition, a national action plan for the management of overloaded trucks carrying containers (an Austroads project, led by the NTC), has recommended the development of a national approach to address unevenly loaded container carrying vehicles. Such overloading may result in axle overloads even though the vehicles gross permissible mass is not exceeded. The central recommendation of the action plan was the legislative mandating of the provision of accurate container weight declarations to the vehicle operator and driver prior to the commencement of the containers carriage by road. The
Page 2
action plan noted that this legislative measure would not solve the problem of containers that have been unevenly loaded, albeit that their overall weight has been correctly declared. This work will provide definitive information on the extent to which axle overloading within gross legal limits occurs, and the degree to which the axles are overloaded. This information will support investigations when considering whether an axle overloading defence might be appropriate in circumstances where the gross vehicle limits and the gross combination limits have not been exceeded. 1.3 Scope
There are two parts to this investigation:

determining the individual relationships between the summation of axle group ESAs and GVM for a number of common heavy vehicle types determining the distribution and extent of overloaded axle groups among vehicles that are not exceeding GVM limits for a number of common heavy vehicle types.
The following vehicle types are included in the investigation:

two-axle rigid truck (R1-1) three-axle rigid truck (R1-2) four-axle rigid truck (R2-2) five-axle single articulated (A122) six-axle single articulated (A123) B-double (B1232) B-double (B1233) A-double (A123-T23) A-triple (A123-T23-T23)
2. METHOD Weigh-in-motion data from six jurisdictions was interrogated to extract the relevant data for the agreed vehicle types for the three years 1998 to 2000. The data obtained from Western Australia was not included in the analyses presented below as the WIM systems in that jurisdiction had not been appropriately maintained and thus were likely to record inaccuracies. This data was processed to examine the overloaded axle groups when the vehicle was within the legal GVM limits. 2.1 The data
WIM data collected during 1998, 1999 and 2000 were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5. Observations for the nine vehicle types listed previously were included in the analysis.
Page 3
For each vehicle the following variables were available and used in the analysis:

jurisdiction site ID time and date Austroads vehicle class vehicle speed distance between axles (one to two, two to three, three to four, etc)
gross mass axle group mass number of axles number of axle groups distance between extreme axles
Table 1 shows the number of records available for each state and each year for the above vehicle types. It should be noted that no data for 2000 was available from South Australia or Tasmania. Table 1. Number vehicles recorded in each jurisdiction
Jurisdiction New South Wales Victoria Queensland South Australia Tasmania Northern Territory Total No. of Vehicles 1998 3,121,481 459,870 60,923 725,434 351,739 3,108 4,722,555 1999 3,251,415 381,128 3,350,894 770,162 326,738 14,435 8,094,772 2000 2,119,154 1,625,922 7,230, 403 66,522 3,811,598 Total 8,492,050 2,466,920 10,642,220 1,495,596 678,477 84,065 23,859,328
Cross tabulation of Austroads class by number of axles and axle groups revealed the expected correspondence for all records. For example, all Class 3 vehicles had two axles and all Class 8 vehicles had five axles. Investigation of minimum and maximum speeds revealed some records of excessive speeds. All vehicles recorded as travelling in excess of 150 km/h were eliminated from further analysis. This constituted less than 0.2 per cent of cases for each jurisdiction. All vehicles recorded over the GVM limit were excluded from analyses conducted during Part B of this project. This constituted between 1.0 per cent (Victoria) and 4.3 per cent (New South Wales) of observations. Table 2 shows the number of observations excluded from the analyses by vehicle type.
Page 4
Table 2.
Records removed from analysis due to excessive speed or violation of GVM limits
GVM limit (t) 16.50 24.75 29.15 42.90 46.75 64.90 68.75 86.90 127.05 No. of vehicles exceeding GVM limit (% of vehicles within type) 86,318 (1.4%) 64,042 (2.2%) 28,788 (7.3%) 13,168 (1.0%) 527,479 (4.8%) 3,902 (3.7%) 87,476 (4.8%) 26 (0.5%) 2,614 (4.3%) 813,813 (3.4%) No. of vehicles > 150 km/h 5,171 464 26 144 213 2 32 0 0 6,052
Vehicle type R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 Total
A tolerance of 10 per cent of axle group mass limits was allowed in order to cater for WIM accuracy and other effects. The resulting axle load limits were as presented in Table 3. Table 3. Axle group mass limits (including 10% tolerance)
Vehicle type R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 No. of axle groups 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 7 Axle group mass limit (t) Steer 6.6 6.6 11 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 6.6 Drive 9.9 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 18.15 22 22 22 22 22 18.15 18.15 18.15 22 22 22 18.15 22 Trailer 1 Dolly 1 Trailer 2 Dolly 2 Trailer 3
Page 5
3. PART A ESA AND GVM RELATIONSHIPS 3.1 Method
The aim of Part A was to determine and report the individual relationships between the summation of axle group ESA and GVM for the specified heavy vehicle types. For each agreed heavy vehicle type, the ESA value for each axle group was computed using the measured axle mass and the following formulae with the reference load values from Table 41.
axle/group load ESA = reference load
4
(1)
Table 4. Equivalent standard axles reference values

Axle Configuration Load (kN) Single Single 53 Single Dual 80 Twin Single 90 Tandem Dual 135 Tri Dual 181
Note: the axle loads in Table 4 are expressed in kilo Newton (Kn). To convert kN to tonnes, divide by 9.81 The axle group ESA values were summed to produce a total vehicle ESA for each observation. Regression expressions were developed using GVM as the independent variable and the summed ESA value as the dependent variable. The following functional forms were all trialled for each vehicle class, however, the regression equations accepted all took the form of a cubic polynomial equation:

linear logarithmic inverse quadratic cubic power
compound logistic growth s-curve exponential
SPSS was used to generate the best coefficients for each model form. The equation that best predicted computed ESA values (based on the coefficient of determination) were selected. Before curve fitting analyses were conducted, those vehicles that fell below the lowest 1.5th percentile or above the 98.5th percentile on GVM were removed from the data set. These outlying cases were removed because they can have a considerable impact upon the outcomes of the analysis while constituting less than 3 per cent of the sample of that vehicle class. Expressions for estimating ESA for each agreed vehicle type are in the following section, along with the GVM ranges to which the equations presented apply.
From Austroads (1992). A guide to the structural design of pavements, table 7.1
Page 6
It is noted that the GVM is in tonnes for the following equations used to estimate the ESA.
3.2
Results
3.2.1 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1)

For the 5,875,363 R1-1 type vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 2.5 to 16.4 t) the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.0461 x GVM) - (0.0156 x GVM2) + (0.0018 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.88. Standard error of estimate = 0.340 ESA (2)
Figure 1 shows that there are a few R1-1 vehicles which are outliers. As such, the equation developed probably enables GVM to account for more than 88 per cent of the variance in ESA for most of the sample of R1-1 vehicles.
Figure 1.
Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for R1-1 vehicles2
This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected R1-1 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 5,875,363 R1-1 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 7
3.2.2 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)

For the 2,773,709 R1-2 vehicles originally included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 6.3 to 25.6 t) the equation originally developed was a poor predictor of GVM. As such, the data was investigated to see what restrictions could be applied to the relevant sample to develop a better prediction equation. There were a number of R1-2 vehicles with extremely high loading on the steer axle. Elimination of those vehicles above the 99th percentile on steer axle loading left a sample of 2,745,029 vehicles (with GVMs ranging from 6.3 to 25.6 t and steer axle loadings up to 8 t). The following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.0957 x GVM) - (0.0099 x GVM2) + (0.00059 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.93. Standard error of the estimate = 0.488 ESA (3)
Figure 2 shows a scatter plot of GVM and ESA for R1-2 vehicles, and the associated prediction line.
Figure 2.
3.2.3 Four-Axle Rigid (R2-2)

For the 382,187 R2-2 vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 8.2 to 36.3 t) the following equation was developed. Figure 3 shows that there are a few R2-2 vehicles which are outliers. As such, the equation developed enables GVM to account for more than 94 per cent of the variance in ESA for most of the sample of R2-2 vehicles. Predicted ESA = (0.1010 x GVM) - (0.0120 x GVM2) + (0.00052 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.94. (4)
This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected R1-2 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 2,745,029 R1-2 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 8
Standard error of the estimate = 0.689 ESA
Figure 3.
3.2.4 Five-Axle Single Articulated (A122)

For the 1,300,242 A122 vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 9.3 to 41.6 t) the equation developed initially was a poor predictor of GVM. As such, the data was investigated to see what restrictions could be applied to the relevant sample to develop a better prediction equation. There were a number of A122 vehicles with extremely high loading on the steer axle. Elimination of those vehicles above the 99th percentile on steer axle loading left a sample of 1,293,774 vehicles (with GVMs ranging from 9.3 to 41.6 t and steer axle loadings up to 8 t). The following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.08000 x GVM) - (0.0051 x GVM2) + (0.00018 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.95. Standard error of the estimate = 0.509 ESA (5)
Figure 4 shows a scatter plot of GVM and ESA for A122 vehicles, and the associated prediction line.
This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected R2-2 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 382,187 R2-2 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 9
Figure 4.
Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A122 vehicles5
3.2.5 Six-Axle Single Articulated (A123)

For the 10,728,556 A123 vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 12.9 to 50.6 t) the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.1190 x GVM) (0.0068 x GVM2) + (0.00016 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.92. Standard error of the estimate = 1.022 (6)
Figure 5 shows that there are a large number of A123 vehicles which are outliers. It is likely that the equation developed enables GVM to account for more than 92 per cent of the variance in ESA for most of the sample of A123 vehicles.
Figure 5. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A123 vehicles6
5 This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected A122 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 1,293,774 A122 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 10
3.2.6 B-Double (B1232)

For the 164,924 B1232 vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 15.2 to 66.4 t) the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.0677 x GVM) - (0.0024 x GVM2) + (0.000058 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.89. Standard error of the estimate = 1.542 ESA (7)
Figure 6 shows that there are a large number of B1232 vehicles which are outliers, especially among vehicles of greater than approximately 50 t GVM. This plot also shows that there is a bi-modal distribution for this vehicle a large proportion of the sample producing high ESA values, especially above the statutory GVM level of 59 t. This may explain the relatively low r2 that could be achieved for this vehicle class. It is likely that the equation developed enables GVM to account for more than 89 per cent of the variance in ESA for the majority of B1232 vehicles, especially those under 50 t GVM.
Figure 6. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for B1232 vehicles7
6 This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected A123 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 10,728,556 A123 vehicles with the processing capacity available. 7 This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected B1232 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 164,924 B1232 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 11
3.2.7 B-Double (B1233)

For the 1,853,067 B1233 vehicles included in the sample (with GVMs ranging from 18.8 to 73.1 t) the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.1050 x GVM) - (0.0041 x GVM2) + (0.000066 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.97. Standard error of the estimate = 0.812 ESA (8)
Figure 7 shows that there are a few B1232 vehicles which are outliers. As such, the equation developed probably enables GVM to account for more than 97 per cent of the variance in ESA for most of the sample of B1233 vehicles.
Figure 7. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for B1233 vehicles8
8 This graph represents 75,000 randomly selected B1233 vehicles. It was not possible to use the entire sample of 1,853,067 B1233 vehicles with the processing capacity available.
Page 12
3.2.8 A-Double (A123-T23)

For the 4,974 A123-T23 vehicles included in the sample with GVMs ranging from 18.1 to 82.8 t the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.0480 x GVM) - (0.0009 x GVM2) + (0.000023 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.91. Standard error of the estimate = 1.307 (9)
Figure 8 shows that there are a few A123-T23 vehicles which are outliers. As such, the equation developed enables GVM to account for more than 91 per cent of the variance in ESA for most of the sample of A123-T23 vehicles.
Figure 8. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A123-T23 vehicles.
Page 13
3.2.9 A-Triple (A123-T23-T23)

For the 59,558 A123-T23-T23 vehicles included in the sample with GVMs ranging from 28.4 to 137.7 t, the following equation was developed. Predicted ESA = (0.1030 x GVM) - (0.0021 x GVM2) + (0.000019 x GVM3) Adjusted r2 = 0.98. Standard error of the estimate = 1.18 ESA (10)
Figure 9 shows that there are very few A123-T23-T23 vehicles which would be considered outliers, hence r2 is very high.
Figure 9. Scatter plot of ESA against GVM, and associated prediction line, for A-Triple vehicles
A summary of the predictive equations developed is in Table 5. Equivalent standard axle estimates using expressions 2 to 10 for the nine vehicle types analysed are in Appendix A. These ESA values were computed for the statutory GVM limits and the GVM ranges that were used to develop the expressions. ESA values using expression 1 for the statutory axle mass limits and reference values from Table 1 are also presented in Appendix A.
Page 14
Table 5. Summary of predictive equations

Vehicle type R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 Predictive Equation Predicted ESA = (0.0461 x GVM) - (0.0156 x GVM2) + (0.0018 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0957 x GVM) - (0.0099 x GVM2) + (0.00059 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1010 x GVM) - (0.0120 x GVM2) + (0.00052 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.08000 x GVM) - (0.0051 x GVM2) + (0.00018 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1190 x GVM) (0.0068 x GVM2) + (0.00016 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0677 x GVM) - (0.0024 x GVM2) + (0.000058 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1050 x GVM) - (0.0041 x GVM2) + (0.000066 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.0480 x GVM) - (0.0009 x GVM2) + (0.000023 x GVM3) Predicted ESA = (0.1030 x GVM) - (0.0021 x GVM2) + (0.000019 x GVM3) GVM range (t) 2.5 - 16.4 6.3 - 25.6 (& up to 8 tonne steer) 8.2 - 36.3 9.3 - 41.6 (& up to 8 tonne steer) 12.9 - 50.6 15.2 - 66.4 18.8 - 73.1 18.1 - 82.8 28.4 - 137.7 r2 0.88 0.93 0.94 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.97 0.91 0.98
4. PART B DISTRIBUTION OF OVERLOADED AXLES 4.1 Method
The aim of Part B was to determine the distribution and extent of overloaded axle groups among vehicles that are under the relevant GVM limit for a number of common heavy vehicle types. Please note that jurisdictions are not identified in the following text, and are referred to as Jurisdictions 1 through 6.
4.2
Results
4.2.1 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1)

Figure 10 to Figure 16 show axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the R1-1 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and each jurisdiction separately.
Two-axle rigid
10
axle group overloading (% of vehicles)
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 10.
Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Page 15
Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 11.
Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 19982000

Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 12.
Page 16
Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 13.

Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 14.
Page 17
Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 15.
Two-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 16.
4.2.2 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)
Page 18
Figure 17 through Figure 23 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the R1-2 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and for each jurisdiction.
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 17.
Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 19982000
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Page 19
Figure 18.
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 19.
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 20.
Page 20
Three-axle rigid
14
12
10
2 0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 21.
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 22.
Page 21
Three-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 23.
4.2.3 Four-Axle Rigid (R2-2)

Figure 24 to Figure 30 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the R2-2 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and for each jurisdiction separately.
Four-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Page 22
Figure 24.
Axle group overloading for R2-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Four-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
Figure 25.
Four-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 26.
Page 23
Four axle rigid

10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 27.
group overloading for R2-2 vehicles (r2-2) Jurisdiction 3 19982000
Four-axle rigid
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive
Figure 28.
Page 24
Four-axle rigid
14
12
10
2 0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 29.

Four-axle rigid
10
0 steer drive
axle group
Figure 30.
4.2.4 Five-Axle Single Articulated (A122)

Figure 31 to Figure 37 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the A122 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and each jurisdiction separately.
Page 25
Five-axle single articulated

10
0 steer drive trailer 1
axle group
Figure 31.
Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000

10
axle group
Figure 32.
Axle group overloading for A122 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 19982000
Page 26

10
axle group
Figure 33.

10
axle group
Figure 34.
Page 27

10
axle group
Figure 35.

10
axle group
Figure 36.
Page 28

10
axle group
Figure 37.
4.2.5 Six-Axle Single Articulated (A123)

Figure 38 to Figure 44 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the A123 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and each jurisdiction separately.
Six-axle single articulated

10
axle group
Page 29
Figure 38.
Axle group overloading for A123 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000

10
axle group
Figure 39.

10
axle group
Figure 40.
Page 30

10
axle group
Figure 41.

10
axle group
Figure 42.
Page 31

10
axle group
Figure 43.

10
axle group
Figure 44.
Page 32
4.2.6 Eight-Axle B-Double (B1232)

Figure 45 to Figure 51 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the B1232 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and each jurisdiction separately.
Eight-axle B-double
10
0 steer drive trailer 1 trailer 2
axle group
Figure 45.
Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Eight-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 46.
Axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000
Page 33
Eight-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 47.
Eight-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 48.
Page 34
Eight-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 49.
Eight-axle B-double
40 38 36 34 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 trailer 2
axle group
Figure 50.
Inspection of the data collected within Jurisdiction 5 revealed that a large percentage of B1232 vehicles with a wheel base of up to approximately 20 meters were over the load limit for the steer axle group. It is this subgroup of vehicles that accounts largely for the
Page 35
high percentage of overloaded steer axle groups shown in the above graph. Although vehicles of up to 20 metres wheel base comprise 40 per cent of the B1232 vehicles, they comprise 73 per cent of the vehicles with overloaded steer axles.
Eight-axle B-double
14
12
10
2 0 steer drive trailer 1 trailer 2
axle group
Figure 51.
4.2.7 Nine-Axle B-Double (B1233)

Figure 52 to Figure 58 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the B1233 vehicles for all jurisdictions combined and each jurisdiction separately.
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 52.
Axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Page 36
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 53.
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 54.
Page 37
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 55.
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 56.
Page 38
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 57.
Nine-axle B-double
10
axle group
Figure 58.
Page 39
4.2.8 A-Double (A123-T23)

Figure 59 to Figure 63 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the A123-T23 vehicles for each jurisdiction in which more than 25 vehicles were recorded as being under the GVM limit.
A-double
10
0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2
axle group
Figure 59.
Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles - all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000
A-double
20
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2
axle group
Figure 60.
Axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 1998-2000
Page 40
There were only 110 A-double vehicles recorded in Jurisdiction 1 and so the above graph must be interpreted with caution.
A-double
10
axle group
Figure 61.
A-double
10
axle group
Figure 62.
Page 41
A-double
10
axle group
Figure 63.
4.2.9 A-Triple (A123-T23-T23)

Figure 64 to Figure 67 show the axle group overloading expressed as the percentage of the observations for the A123-T23-T23 vehicles for each jurisdiction in which they are permitted to operate.
A-triple
20
18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2 dolly 2 trailer 3
axle group
Figure 64.
Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles - all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000
Page 42
A-triple
30
28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2 dolly 2 trailer 3
axle group
Figure 65.
Axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 1998-2000
A-triple
30
28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2 dolly 2 trailer 3
axle group
Figure 66.
Page 43
A-triple
30 28
axle group overlolading (% of vehicles)
26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2 dolly 2 trailer 3
Figure 67.
Page 44
4.2.10 Axle group overloading

Table 6 to Table 1 show axle group overloading by vehicle type for each jurisdiction and all jurisdictions combined.
Table 6. Axle group overloading by vehicle type for all jurisdiction

No. of vehicles under GVM limit 5,967,245 2,793,311 368,670 1,327,788 10,528,585 166,255 1,823,638 5,185 58,786 Axle group overloading Steer No. of vehicles 40,603 182,346 29,703 52,878 387,080 9,034 100,208 327 9,759 % 0.7 6.5 8.1 4.0 3.7 5.4 5.5 6.3 16.6 Drive No. of vehicles 67,561 19,145 5,145 10,585 300,036 5,085 37,360 354 4,341 % 1.1 0.7 1.4 0.8 2.8 3.1 2.0 6.8 7.4 20,697 459,823 6,478 107,332 274 1,747 1.6 4.4 3.9 5.9 5.3 3.0 55 651 1.1 1.1 3,820 80,768 50 2,045 2.3 4.4 1.0 3.5 488 0.8 2,232 3.8 Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % Trailer 2 No. of vehicles % Dolly 2 No. of vehicles % Trailer 3 No. of vehicles %
Vehicle type
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23
Page 45
Table 7. Axle group overloading by vehicle type for Jurisdiction 1

Vehicle type No. of vehicles under GVM limit 1,611,350 726,981 82,098 483,233 4,441,127 43,187 739,094 111 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 10,884 56,586 6,492 22,877 188,835 1346 49,860 19 % 0.7 7.8 7.9 4.7 4.3 3.1 6.7 17.1 Drive No. of vehicles 23,833 5,573 1,802 3,851 135,527 849 13,308 9 % 1.5 0.8 2.2 0.8 3.1 2.0 1.8 8.1 9,681 268,601 1,566 54,449 3 2.0 6.0 3.6 7.4 2.7 8 7.2 1715 43,690 4 4.0 5.9 3.6 Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % No. of vehicles %
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23

No. of vehicles under GVM limit 720,358 322,817 43,066 161,447 991,228 9,287 194,330 23 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 4,624 12,058 2,987 2,479 15,472 164 3,212 9 % 0.6 3.7 6.9 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.7 39.1 Drive No. of vehicles 7,049 870 366 420 5,090 70 854 0 % 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.0 1562 18,391 309 7,054 0 1.0 1.9 3.3 3.6 0.0 1 4.3 49 4,335 0 0.5 2.2 0.0 Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % Trailer 2 No. of vehicles %
Vehicle type
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23
Page 46

No. of vehicles under GVM limit 3,191,576 1,540,108 227,175 517,704 4,036,811 94,364 658,731 2,586 18,361 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 21,588 94,755 18,063 19,359 125,547 5,181 32,145 181 % 0.7 6.2 8.0 3.7 3.1 5.5 4.9 7.0 Drive No. of vehicles 31,975 11,559 2,866 5,059 131,942 3,706 19,422 237 % 1.0 0.8 1.3 1.0 3.3 3.9 2.9 9.2 6,560 1.3 118,032 2.9 4,013 4.3 38,265 5.8 206 8.0 683 3.7 21 0.8 205 1.1 1,623 1.7 24,001 3.6 35 1.4 1,154 6.3 161 0.9 1,616 8.8 Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % Trailer 2 No. of vehicles % Dolly 2 No. of vehicles % Trailer 3 No. of vehicles %
Vehicle type
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23
4,238 23.1
1,946 10.6
Page 47

No. of vehicles under GVM limit 235,587 100,340 4,123 90,352 782,904 15,589 196,703 1,838 16,295 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 1,586 12,020 753 6,255 49,224 1,095 13,413 73 2,308 % 0.7 12.0 18.3 6.9 6.3 7.0 6.8 4.0 14.2 Drive No. of vehicles % Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % Trailer 2 No. of vehicles % Dolly 2 No. of vehicles % Trailer 3 No. of vehicles %
Vehicle type
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23
2,103 0.9 238 0.2 39 0.9 543 0.6 23,187 3.0 441 2.8 2,793 1.4 82 4.5 1,134 7.0 862 1.0 31,683 4.0 493 3.2 4,940 2.5 27 1.5 531 3.3 9 0.5 168 1.0 267 1.7 6,898 3.5 6 0.3 371 2.3 111 0.7 281 1.7
Page 48

Vehicle type No. of vehicles under GVM limit 177,646 90,973 8,105 70,601 267,868 3,361 32,635 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 1,855 6,422 1,065 1,688 7,364 1,143 1,227 % 1.0 7.1 13.1 2.4 2.7 34.0 3.8 Drive No. of vehicles 2,284 831 56 678 4,178 13 954 % 1.3 0.9 0.7 1.0 1.6 0.4 2.9 1,923 22,869 77 2,576 2.7 8.5 2.3 7.9 137 1,716 4.1 5.3 trailer 1 No. of vehicles % trailer 2 No. of vehicles %
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233
Page 49

No. of vehicles under GVM limit 29,421 14,057 676 3,814 7,371 346 1,407 544 24,128 Axle groups overloaded Steer No. of vehicles 51 791 32 200 562 46 86 37 3,213 % 0.2 5.6 4.7 5.2 7.6 13.3 6.1 6.8 13.3 Drive No. of vehicles 282 52 5 19 96 6 21 14 1,261 % 1.0 0.4 0.7 0.5 1.3 1.7 1.5 2.6 5.2 59 131 17 15 20 533 1.5 1.8 4.9 1.1 3.7 2.2 2 278 0.4 1.2 6 25 4 520 1.7 1.8 .7 2.2 216 0.9 335 1.4 Trailer 1 No. of vehicles % Dolly 1 No. of vehicles % Trailer 2 No. of vehicles % Dolly 2 No. of vehicles % Trailer 3 No. of vehicles %
Vehicle type
R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23
Page 50
It is worth noting that some vehicles that were under the GVM limit had more than one axle group over the respective axle group limit. Table 13 shows how many vehicles had multiple axles over the respective load limit.
Table 13. Number of axle groups over the load limit for vehicles under the GVM limit
Vehicle type 1 R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 1.8 7.2 9.5 6.0 9.6 11.1 12.4 15.6 19.8 0.3 0.7 2.2 2.9 8.2 4.2 0.3 0.2 3.3 1.8 0.5 0.1 Number of axle groups over the limit (% of vehicles) 2 3 4 5
4.2.11 Magnitude of axle group overloading

Figure 68 to Figure 78 present the proportion of vehicles with axle group overloading by the amount they are overloaded. The proportion of vehicles with axle groups exceeding the relevant axle group load limit by 0-5 per cent, 5-20 per cent, and over 20 per cent (corresponding to the three tier risk categorisation bill), the mean, standard deviation and 50th percentile overload for each axle group for each vehicle type is presented following these graphs in Table 14 and Table 15.
Page 51
Two-axle rigid
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive 10
0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.4 overloading (tonne) 9.7
Figure 68.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Three-axle rigid
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive 10
0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2 overloading (tonne) 8.5
Figure 69.
Page 52
Four-axle rigid
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive 10
0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.4 9.7 overloading (tonne)
Figure 70.
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive trailer 1 10
Figure 71.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A122 vehicles (A122) all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Page 53

25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive trailer 1 10
Figure 72.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Eight-axle B-double
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive trailer 1 trailer 2 10
Figure 73.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for B1232 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
Page 54
Nine-axle B-double
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive trailer 1 trailer 2 10
Figure 74.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for B1233 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000
A-double
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive 10
Figure 75.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 1 & 2
Page 55
A-double
25
20
% of vehicles
15 trailer 1 dolly 1 trailer 2 10
Figure 76.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 3 to 5
A-triple
25
20
% of vehicles
15 steer drive trailer 1 dolly 1 10
Figure 77.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 1 to 4
Page 56
A-triple
25
20
% of vehicles
15 trailer 2 dolly 2 trailer 3 10
0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.6 1.9 2.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.0 7.3 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.1 9.4 9.7 10.0
overloading (tonne)
Figure 78.
Magnitude of axle group overloading for A123-T23-T23 vehicles all relevant jurisdictions 1998-2000, axle groups 5 to 7
Page 57
Table 14. Axle overloading magnitude statistics (Classes 3 -10)

Vehicle type Statistic % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) Steer 0.27 0.30 0.10 0.67 0.89 0.40 2.21 3.10 1.20 0.78 1.00 0.50 3.22 3.90 0.90 0.94 0.98 0.60 1.60 1.80 0.60 0.81 1.42 0.40 1.80 1.50 0.40 0.54 0.82 0.30 1.78 2.50 1.12 0.94 1.34 0.50 2.65 2.40 0.40 0.46 0.61 0.30 Drive 0.57 0.50 0.03 0.57 0.49 0.40 0.53 0.20 0.00 0.55 0.48 0.40 0.85 0.50 0.04 0.90 0.94 0.60 0.45 0.30 0.02 0.99 0.96 0.70 1.90 0.90 0.03 0.75 0.71 0.50 1.80 1.12 0.14 1.31 1.47 0.85 1.42 0.60 0.04 0.76 0.84 0.50 0.69 0.74 0.13 1.35 1.28 1.00 2.75 1.57 0.04 0.94 0.85 0.70 2.22 1.56 0.13 1.67 1.71 0.12 3.66 2.16 0.07 0.98 0.90 0.70 1.46 0.79 0.03 1.14 1.10 0.83 2.87 1.52 0.04 0.91 0.87 0.70 Axle group Trailer 1 Dolly 1
R1-1
R1-2
R2-2
A122
A123
B1232
B1233
Page 58
Table 15. Axle overloading magnitude statistics (Class 11 & 12)

Axle group Vehicle type Statistic % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% A123-T23 % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) % of vehicles over limit by < 5% % of vehicles over limit by 5%-20% A123-T23-T23 % of vehicles over limit by > 20% Mean (t over limit) Std. Deviation (t over limit) 50th Percentile (t over limit) Steer 2.37 3.00 0.80 0.65 0.92 0.30 5.22 9.40 2.00 0.56 0.46 0.40 Drive 2.84 3.20 0.71 1.51 1.39 1.10 3.44 3.60 0.34 1.21 1.05 0.90 Trailer 1 1.86 2.49 0.67 1.85 1.77 1.30 1.49 1.30 0.18 1.40 1.39 0.90 Dolly 1 0.29 0.33 0.18 1.80 1.55 1.20 0.61 0.47 0.03 1.01 0.90 0.80 Trailer 2 0.29 0.63 0.04 1.76 1.23 1.70 1.77 1.53 0.18 1.36 1.32 0.90 0.49 0.33 0.01 0.91 0.77 0.70 1.87 1.85 0.08 1.25 1.05 1.00 Dolly 2 Trailer 3
Page 59
5. CONCLUSIONS
This report provides cubic polynomial equations for predicting ESA for nine heavy vehicle types. Coefficients of determination between 0.66 and 0.94 have been obtained for these equations, which represents a statistically robust relationship that can be employed by NTC to estimate ESA from gross vehicle mass with a high degree of confidence. This report also provides information on the extent to which axle group overloading within GVM limits occurs. The magnitude of this overloading, described according to the draft Road Transport Reform Bill, is also described. This information will support the NTC investigations required in considering whether an axle group overloading defence might be appropriate when GVM limits have not been exceeded. The analysis for two-axle rigid vehicles in Australia showed that 1.1 per cent of the drive axles were overloaded, and 4.4 per cent of the trailer axle groups on six-axle articulated vehicles were also overloaded. Information on overloading for nine vehicle types is presented in graphical and tabular forms throughout the report.
Page 61
APPENDIX A ESA ESTIMATES USING THE PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS

Equivalent standard axle estimates using expressions 2 to 10 for the nine vehicle types analysed are in Table 17. These ESA values were computed for the following GVM values:

lower GVM limit from the measured axle load data that was used to develop the expressions upper GVM limit from the measured axle load data that was used to develop the expressions statutory GVM limits (as listed in Table 16).
Table 16. Statutory axle group mass values

Vehicle type R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 No. of axle groups 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 7 Axle group mass limit (t) Steer 6 6 11 6 6 6 6 6 6 Drive 9 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.5 20 20 20 20 20 16.5 16.5 16.5 20 20 20 16.5 20 Trailer 1 Dolly 1 Trailer 2 Dolly 2 Trailer 3 GVM 15 22.5 27.5 39 42.5 59 62.5 79 115.5
Page 62
The sum of axle group ESA values were computed using expression 1 for the statutory axle mass limits and reference values from Table 4. These ESA values are listed in Table 17 column 6 labelled Sum of axle group ESAs.
Table 17. Equivalent standard axle values

Lower GVM limit (t) R1-1 R1-2 R2-2 A122 A123 B1232 B1233 A123-T23 A123-T23-T23 2.5 6.3 8.2 9.3 12.9 15.2 18.8 18.1 28.4 ESA 0.05 0.36 0.31 0.46 0.75 0.96 0.96 0.71 1.67 (t) 15.0 22.5 27.5 39.0 42.5 59.0 62.5 79.0 115.5 Statutory GVM limit ESA 3.26 3.87 4.52 6.19 5.06 7.55 6.66 9.51 13.16 Sum of axle group ESAs 3.00 3.59 4.13 5.65 4.97 7.04 6.35 8.42 11.86 Upper GVM limit (t) 16.4 25.6 36.3 41.6 50.9 66.4 73.1 82.8 137.7 ESA 4.50 5.87 12.73 7.63 9.54 10.89 11.55 10.86 23.97 Selected GVM (t) 10 16 21 30 33 48 56 65 83 ESA 0.70 1.42 1.64 2.76 2.27 4.13 4.61 5.63 4.95

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data Information Paper: July 2005

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data Information Paper: July 2005

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REVIEW OF HEAVY VEHICLE AXLE LOAD DATA Information Paper

Prepared by ARRB Transport Research Ltd

National Transport Commission

3. PART A ESA AND GVM RELATIONSHIPS.......................................................5

4. PART B DISTRIBUTION OF OVERLOADED AXLES .....................................14

5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................59 APPENDIX A ESA ESTIMATES USING THE PREDICTIVE EQUATIONS.........................................................................................................61

Figure 74. Figure 75. Figure 76. Figure 77.

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

There are two parts to this investigation:

The following vehicle types are included in the investigation:

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3. PART A ESA AND GVM RELATIONSHIPS 3.1 Method

Table 4. Equivalent standard axles reference values

linear logarithmic inverse quadratic cubic power

compound logistic growth s-curve exponential

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.1 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.2 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)

3.2.3 Four-Axle Rigid (R2-2)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

Standard error of the estimate = 0.689 ESA

3.2.4 Five-Axle Single Articulated (A122)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.5 Six-Axle Single Articulated (A123)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.6 B-Double (B1232)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.7 B-Double (B1233)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.8 A-Double (A123-T23)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

3.2.9 A-Triple (A123-T23-T23)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

Table 5. Summary of predictive equations

4. PART B DISTRIBUTION OF OVERLOADED AXLES 4.1 Method

4.2.1 Two-Axle Rigid (R1-1)

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles all jurisdictions 1998-2000

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 1 19982000

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 2 19982000

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 3 19982000

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 4 19982000

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 5 19982000

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-1 vehicles Jurisdiction 6 19982000

4.2.2 Three-Axle Rigid (R1-2)

Review of Heavy Vehicle Axle Load Data

axle group overloading (% of vehicles)

Axle group overloading for R1-2 vehicles all jurisdictions 19982000